Archive for October 2011
One of Fiji’s short-lived illegal Prime Minister Jona Baravilala dies
Jona Baravilala
Jona Baravilala was once a revered indigenous Fijian medial practitioner who also served as Fiji’s diplomat to Japan then to the US of A.
He was president of Fiji Medical Association and was a discplinarian who sat in the Fiji Law Society Displinary Committee.
In his later years, he became the Fiji Military Forces medical doctor and it was during his tenure there that had him best placed as Frank’s convenient tool to use as his interim Prime Minister following his coup d’etat of December 2006.
Baravilala was in his late 70s then and had nothing much to lose, except his reputation, after been approached by Frank to stand in as his conduit to power.
And yes he did, Baravilala decided in his own capacity as a learned adult to avail himself to tyrant Frank and his now known backers with their illegal takeover.
Many who know Baravilala were completely taken by surprise with his decision, yet his action revealed another dark side to him that contradicted the many sermons he had preached to his congregation in Yarawa Methodist Church as its elder and lay preacher.
He, like many hypocritical religious lay preachers in Fiji, finally revealed his inner most self that promoted nothing more than himself and his own selfish worldly ambitions.
He took the law onto himself and became one of Fiji’s worst role model for younger Fijians by perpetuating the coup culture in his final decision to take Frank’s illegal oath as Prime Minister for a few days only.
He was Frank’s Prime Minister from mid-December 2006 to January 4 2007.
Frank Bainimarama was later sworn in as Fiji’s illegitimate Prime Minister the following day on January 5 2007.
So what type of legacy did Jona Baravilala leave behind?
Will be interesting to hear what Moses and David told this lay preacher when he made his way to the pearly gate!
Fiji union leader detained by police, no reason given
Trade unionists say the head of the Fiji Trade Union Congress has been detained by police but they have given no reason for holding him.
The Fiji Trade Union Congress’s Felix Anthony, says the president, Daniel Urai, was picked up by police at Nadi airport on Saturday, then taken to Suva.
Mr Urai was returning from a series of meetings in Australia during which time the Australian Council of Trade Unions announced a plan to roll out a campaign against holidaying in Fiji in support of workers there.
Mr Anthony says he is being held for questioning but his lawyer hasn’t been able to see him yet.
“We see absolutely no reason why he should be detained and we are also very concerned that he’s been detained under the public emergency regulations which actually allow the police to detain him for ten days without charge.”
Mr Anthony says Daniel Urai had a brief visit from his family yesterday.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
Fijian asylum seeker hunger strikes in Australian detention centre
A Fijian man in an Australian immigration detention centre has gone on hunger strike.
Inoke Qarau is waiting for the result of his asylum claim in Sydney’s Villawood dentention centre.
He says he believes the Fijian military government will target him if he is deported.
Livai Leone, is a Fijian pastor assisting the man says he is afraid of being persecuted for talking to the Australian media about treatment that he and others received at the hands of the authorities after the 2006 coup.
“He was tortured on the Island of Lakemba. There were about four or five of them, workers, who were forced to swim in the open sea with heavy pine logs and they were forced to crawl and they were beaten in front of police,” Father Leone told Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat program.
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201110/3349557.htm?desktop
Corrupt Esala Teleni to return as illegal Deputy PM and Minister Defence
Esela Teleni
One of dictator Frank Bainimarama’s key coup instigator, Esala Teleni, who is currently serving as Frank’s Ambassador to China will soon return to Fiji as Frank’s illegal Deputy PM and Minister Defence.
Teleni was also Frank’s controversial Police Commissioner who used his tainted Souls for Jesus church to fleece taxpayers money from his Fiji Police Forces budget allocation.
His corrupt behavior became too obvious and his prejudice against non-Christian Police Officers irked Aiyaz Khaiyum who eventually convinced Frank to banish Teleni to China where he can be out of sight out of mind.
But now, Frank is already making a new move that will see the beginning of Aiyaz Khaiyum’s forced exit out of the dictator’s core team.
Frank knows that Aiyaz is the perfect subject he can use as the target of Fiji peoples anger on how bad things are in that island state.
Frank also know that Aiyaz is a big show-off who likes to laud it up with his new found illegal power over just about everything he wants to poke his nose in.
Frank wants Aiyaz to be the most hated guy in Fiji and not him as the true dictator, and he has been successful in redirecting Fiji peoples hatred towards Aiyaz.
As far as Frank is concerned, Aiyaz is a seasoned schemer who can do all the dirty work for him while he masquerades in rural settlements with his rural development hand-outs preparing himself for his new position that will ultimately see him as Fiji’s long-term dictator.
Frank is already getting lots of pressure to remove Aiyaz if he wants to remain in power after his fictitous 2014 general election.
Pocket groups of unproductive locals who have found a new lease of life through Frank’s generosity are the ones who are pledging their support to keep the dictator in power, but with the condition that Aiyaz Khaiyum get out of the picture.
They don’t like Aiyaz been the illegal Acting PM every time Frank takes his overseas jaunts and Frank knows it is now time to get an indigenous Fijian like Esala Teleni to be his deputy, just to keep his supporters happy as 2014 draws near.
Frank also know that it is to his best interest that he keep Teleni close to his chest as one of his key coup conspirator in 2006.
He’s got plenty more dirty jobs for Teleni to do who in return need Frank to continue buying his family’s bread and butter from taxpayers’ funds.
He also need Teleni to keep his current Police Commissioner, Iowane Naivalurua in check for well placed sources say that Naivalurua is perceived to be a threat by tyrant Frank Bainimarama.
Gaddafi bodyguard lifts lid on dictator’s final days
Middle East correspondent
Updated October 26, 2011 23:51:44
DECOMPOSING DICTATOR
One of Moamar Gaddafi’s former bodyguards has described the Libyan dictator’s desperate last days as fighters closed in on his final stronghold in the town of Sirte.
Gaddafi, his son Mutassim, and his former defence minister were buried in secret at dawn on Tuesday after their bodies spent days on public display in a cold storeroom.
Now Mansour Dao, who was caught last week alongside Gaddafi, has described how the former leader was forced to flee from one hideout to another as fighters loyal to Libya’s new leaders closed in last week.
Dao said Gaddafi and Mutassim, with a small band of loyal henchmen, would squat in abandoned homes with no TV, no phones and no electricity, using candles for light.
They were largely cut off from the outside world.
He said Gaddafi’s mood would swing from rage to despair as enemy fighters slowly closed in and the last remnants of his 42-year regime crumbled around him.
He said the former dictator spent his final days writing notes and boiling tea on a coal stove.
“He wasn’t leading the battle,” the bodyguard said.
“His sons did that. He didn’t plan anything.”
Gaddafi was shot dead after being captured by fighters loyal to Libya’s new rulers on Thursday.
Now his body, along with those of Mutassim and former defence minister Abu Bakr Younis have been buried at a secret location in the Libyan desert.
SMELLY DICTATOR
A military convoy took their corpses out of Misrata in the dead of night and the National Transitional Council (NTC) says religious leaders performed a simple burial around dawn.
One Libyan official, Mahmoud Shammam, says a strict fatwa or edict was issued to keep the location a closely guarded secret.
“I can’t say exactly what the content of the fatwa is, but it says that his body should not be buried in Muslim cemeteries and should not be buried in a known place to avoid any sedition,” he said.
The NTC has now agreed to launch an inquiry into Gaddafi’s death after pressure from foreign leaders and human rights groups.
International concern has grown after evidence that Gaddafi was still alive after his capture but later died from a bullet wound to the head.
The former dictator was dragged from a drainpipe, where he had been hiding after his convoy was hit by fire while trying to flee Sirte as the town fell.
But Mahmoud Shammam says violence towards Gaddafi was to be expected.
“If a group of revolutionaries capture a killer who shed their blood for 42 years, do you think they would kiss his head?” he said.
“He killed young men and described them as rats, he launched Grad missiles against them, aircraft bombed them and tanks shelled them, he raped their women.
“What else do you think they would have done to Gaddafi?”
With Gaddafi now buried and much of his family in exile or dead, his son and one-time heir Saif al-Islam Gaddafi appears to be the last family member still on the run.
He managed to escape Sirte last week and is now trying to flee the country according to officials in Niger, who say he is heading their way.
Ethnic Tuaregs are apparently guiding him across a sea of sand dunes between Libya, Algeria and Niger, where other family and dozens of Gaddafi loyalists have already fled.
But any freedom might be short lived.
Saif al-Islam is wanted by the International Criminal Court and Niger’s government says if he enters their country he will be handed over to court officials.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/gaddafi27s-bodyguard-final-da…
Dictators Get the Deaths They Deserve….and so will Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum
By SIMON SEBAG MONTEFIORE
“ALL political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure,” wrote Enoch Powell, the controversial but often perspicacious British politician, “because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.” But the political lives of tyrants play out human affairs with a special intensity: the death of a democratic leader long after his retirement is a private matter, but the death of a tyrant is always a political act that reflects the character of his power. If a tyrant dies peacefully in bed in the full resplendence of his rule, his death is a theater of that power; if a tyrant is executed while crying for mercy in the dust, then that, too, is a reflection of the nature of a fallen regime and the reaction of an oppressed people. This was never truer than in the death, last week, of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The only difference between his death and those of so many other tyrants across history was that it was filmed with mobile phones, a facility unavailable to contemporaries of, say, the Roman emperor Caligula. Despite brandished phones and pistols, there was something Biblical in the wild scene, as elemental as the deaths of King Ahab (“the dogs licked up his blood”) and Queen Jezebel (thrown off a palace balcony). It was certainly not as terrible as the death of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus I, who was beaten and dismembered, his hair and teeth pulled out by the mob, his handsome face burned with boiling water. In modern times, it was more frenzied than the semi-formal execution, in 1989, of the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, but not as terrible as the ghastly lynching, in 1958, of the innocent King Faisal II of Iraq (age 23) and his hated uncle, who were supposedly impaled and dismembered, their heads used as soccer balls. In 1996, the pro-Soviet former president of Afghanistan, Najibullah, was castrated, dragged through the streets and hanged. Western leaders and intellectuals find Colonel Qaddafi’s lynching distasteful — Bernard-Henri Lévy worried it would “pollute the essential morality of an insurrection” — yet there are sound political reasons for the public culling of the self-proclaimed king of kings. Colonel Qaddafi’s tyranny was absolutist, monarchical and personal. The problem with such dictatorships is that as long as the tyrant lives, he reigns and terrorizes. As Churchill put it, “dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount.” Only death can end both the spell to bewitch and the prerogative to dominate — and sometimes, not even death can snuff out power. “The terror inspired by Caligula’s reign,” wrote Suetonius, “could be judged by the sequel.” Romans were so terrified of the emperor that it was not enough to assassinate him. They wanted to see him dead: fearing it was a trick and lacking cellphone footage, they had to be convinced. The mile-long line of Libyans who were keen to see Colonel Qaddafi’s cadaver in its shop-refrigerator-tomb would understand this perfectly. When Catherine the Great overthrew her husband, Peter III, in 1762, she knew that if anything happened to him, she would be blamed. Yet her entourage, led by her lover, Grigory Orlov, realized that as long as he lived, he remained the legitimate autocrat: they strangled him. His body was displayed to prove that he was dead, but nonetheless, Peter III impostors tormented Catherine for the rest of her life. Henry IV experienced similar troubles after the death of Richard II; a host of pretenders haunted the usurper. But such comebacks may be history: the cellphone videos, which show Colonel Qaddafi being beaten, and later, the bullet holes in his dead body, rob his last followers of the mystique necessary to lead an insurgency in his name, charged with all the excitement of a (Saddam Hussein-style) heroic leader on the run. His preposterously exuberant cult of personality was surely shattered by the spectacle of his pathetic demolition.
Sometimes the killing of tyrants is specially designed to echo the leader’s vices. Shajar al-Durr, an Egyptian sultan’s widow who became (uniquely in Muslim history) a sultan in her own right, was notorious for her extravagance. When she murdered her new husband in 1257, his concubines beat her to death with her own clogs — both a sign of Arab contempt and the medieval equivalent of death by stiletto. It was said that Edward II, notorious for homosexual relationships with his favorites, was killed with a red-hot poker. The upside-down suspension of the dead Mussolini with his mistress in a town square signaled the end of his pretensions to Caesarian heroism and Casanovan machismo.
For someone who so thrived in the age of television, an impresario of many a circus of public violence, Colonel Qaddafi faced an entirely fitting end. When he asked his frenzied killers, who had known no other ruler in their lives, “Do you not know the difference between right and wrong?” he had already taught them the answer. We may call this auto-tyrannicide. The manically terrifying but ruthlessly brilliant Mamluk sultan Baibars I, was more literally a victim: according to some accounts, he regularly poisoned his guests until, in 1277, he absentmindedly downed a glass of poisoned fermented camel’s milk himself. During the Crusades, the Atabeg of Mosul and Aleppo (in today’s Iraq and part of Syria), Zangi, who liked to castrate the children of enemies, and possibly his boy lovers as well, was supposedly stabbed in his bed by one of those humiliated eunuchs. When Stalin suffered a stroke in 1953, he had recently arrested dozens of doctors for treason. He lay in his own urine for more than 12 hours before his henchmen dared to call a doctor. He was not murdered — like Colonel Qaddafi, he was the author of his own destruction.
There is no greater achievement for the tyrant — short of immortality — than to die in his own bed. He must control the time, place and consequence of death. This is possible with a gradual illness. “Now Herod’s sickness greatly increased upon him … God’s judgment upon him for his sins,” wrote Josephus about the king of Judea. “His entrails had ulcers … an aqueous and transparent liquor had settled itself around his feet and the bottom of his belly. His genitals were rotting and gave birth to worms.” Yet the suppurating Herod managed to kill one rebellious son and arrange the succession of three more before succumbing.
Unlike monarchs, who pass power to their heirs at the moment of death to ensure the survival of the regime, tyrants must simply survive as long as possible. Hence inhumane struggles by indefatigable doctors to keep ailing dictators — Chairman Mao, Leonid I. Brezhnev, Marshal Tito, General Franco — alive. Only the ingenious North Koreans have solved this problem by declaring Kim Il-sung immortal, perpetual president.
The courtiers of modern tyrants have sought to avoid the inconvenience of death by creating new hereditary monarchies. Outside the Arab world, the Kims of North Korea, Kadyrovs of Chechnya, Kabilas of Congo and Aliyevs of Azerbaijan all achieved this dictator’s dream. Few in the Arab world have done the same. Hafez al-Assad of Syria, who ruled from 1970, died in his bed in 2000, passing the presidency to his son Bashar. Colonel Qaddafi, Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Hussein all dreamed of it. But the spoiled heirs of such hereditary tyrannies usually lack the talent of their fathers.
ALL tyrannies are virtuoso displays over many years of cunning, risk-taking, terror, delusion, narcissism, showmanship and charm, distilled into a spectacle of total personal control. Tyrants are the greatest of all actor-managers — omnipotent impresarios. They will last only as long as prestige, prosperity and a vestige of justice are maintained. Uninhibited bloodletting can also work — as Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have demonstrated — until luck eventually runs out in the shape of treason, outside interference or a tsunami of rebellion like the Arab Spring. It is hard to imagine that there would be anything but giblets left if those two now fell into the hands of their people.
If a tyrant cannot die in his own bed, the best he can do is try to stage manage his downfall, because such characters find it unthinkable to exist without ruling. Colonel Qaddafi, like many others, was so narcissistic that he first denied the fact of the revolution before embracing his own reckless, heroic role, the drama of the last stand: “I have set my life upon a cast,” says Shakespeare’s Richard III, “and I will stand the hazard of the die.” Colonel Qaddafi could have saved his family and thousands of lives by retiring to a villa and later facing the International Criminal Court. Yet the narcissist envisages his downfall only as a mise-en-scène featuring his followers, family and country, consumed in his bonfire of egomaniacal nihilism. Colonel Qaddafi must have planned to die in battle like Richard III and Macbeth, or to kill himself. Yet this monstrous poseur totally bungled his own death.
The master class in the death of tyrants was given by Hitler who, even as Russian legions fought their way into Berlin, kept control long enough to plan and execute his testament, marriage and suicide: control to the end in a kerosene-fueled garden Götterdämmerung. But not even he achieved the brilliant dignity of the death of Charles I, denounced as a “man of blood” by his Puritan tormentors, whose grace before execution set a standard that Colonel Qaddafi could only dream of: “I am a martyr of the people,” he said before facing the ax. “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown where no disturbance can be, no disturbance in the world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/opinion/qaddafi-and-the-lives-of-tyrants.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
The ultimate abuse of power
The ultimate abuse of power
Air Pacific: The truth! ….it’s technically insolvent since Frank & Co. took over!
USA Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement to hold rally
By Suliasi Daunitutu
We are three days away from the USA rally and some big guns have come on board.The advocacy group NBOP which is a strong Latino movement fighting for Mexican rights has decided to take our side in this struggle for freedom.
Met with their two executives today and they have offered their help to assist Fijians get the democracy they deserve.
Fiji economist describes FNPF loan to Air Pacific as incredibly risky
Fiji economist Wadan Narsey has described a loan by the Fiji National Provident Fund to Air Pacific as incredibly risky.
The Fund is lending 113 million US dollars for initial funding to buy three new Airbus jets due for delivery in 2013.
In comments published on the blog Coup Four and a Half, Dr Narsey says the FNPF has no business going into risky investments like loans to financially troubled enterprises like Air Pacific.
He says this is especially so when the collateral will not cover the loan if there is a default.
Dr Narsey says the fund’s management and board have no capability to assess whether the proposed investment is sound in an incredibly complex and competitive aviation market.
Dr Narsey says the Fund receives 16 percent of the total wages and salary bill of the country and is being used as a cash cow by the interim government.
“The fund last year wrote down 178 million US dollars from members funds for failed investment projects .”
Fund owners are facing massive cuts to their pensions under proposed reforms.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
Rogues like Frank’s junta in firing line
The Commonwealth needs to find new tools to call recalcitrant countries such as Fiji and Zimbabwe to account other than simply banning them from the organisation, Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd says.
The warning comes amid growing frustration over the Commonwealth’s inability to prevent or punish human rights abuses in member states and warnings the body risks becoming irrelevant.
Speaking in Perth after meeting other Commonwealth foreign ministers, Mr Rudd admitted the organisation was in danger of being seen as always acting too late in the face of a crisis.
He said the Commonwealth needed new weapons to rebuke or penalise rogue nations other than expelling or suspending them from the group.
“Once a military coup occurs, then the one blunt instrument available to the Commonwealth is one of suspension or expulsion,” Mr Rudd said. “On the pre-emptive diplomacy side there may be other means that we can deploy.”
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/10884299/rogues-in-firing-line/
Frank Bainimarama’s fate predetermined by Gaddafi’s death
From this…
to this…
by William Dobson
The Arab revolutions of 2011 have claimed their third dictator, but the death of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is not just the end of another strongman. Even in his downfall, Gaddafi had to be different: While Tunisia’s Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak stands trial, Gaddafi sought to cling to power to the end and died in Sirte, his home town.
His death means more than the end of his brutal 42-year reign and the beginning of Libya’s best chance at a democratic future. It is also the turning of a page in the annals of tyranny. Gaddafi was one of the last of a nearly extinct breed – the uniquely 20th-century dictator.
He certainly could play the part. Gaddafi will probably be best remembered for the figure he cut: a bizarre, mercurial oddball with dark sunglasses, wacky outfits and gelled hair. His idiosyncrasies were legendary: When he travelled, he stayed in a luxurious Bedouin tent and – like a James Bond villain – had an entourage that included female bodyguards and a busty Ukrainian nurse.
His speeches were as long-winded as they were unintelligible. (His 2009 address at the United Nations, slated for 15 minutes, ran an hour and a half.) His ideas, if that is the right word, will be forever preserved in the Green Book, his slim political treatise that he claimed spelled out an alternative to capitalism and communism. What it was, in fact, was a pocket-size totem to his megalomania. Schoolchildren were forced to commit passages to memory; its banal and bizarre aphorisms were plastered on billboards and broadcast on radio and television each day.
Of course, the 20th-century tyrant was hardly all style and no substance. Gaddafi, after all, funded the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the Irish Republican Army and trained would-be autocrats in his dictatorship academies. And he went from terrorism paymaster to participant in 1988 when he ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, a crime that claimed 270 lives.
But the crimes that made Gaddafi a fugitive – that led him to the drainage pipe where he was reportedly hiding when captured – were those he committed against his fellow Libyans. It was his style of rule, rather than his personal tastes or even international terrorism, that made him a 20th-century totalitarian throwback.
As bizarre as he may have seemed to foreign eyes, it was his brutality at home that marked him to those who knew him best. Even among the closeted regimes of the Middle East, Libya was notoriously repressive. Gaddafi’s police state tolerated no independent press, civil society or political opposition. The security apparatus was pervasive, its membership as high as 20 percent of the population by some estimates. Publicly criticising Gaddafi or the regime was a death-defying act.
Long before the Arab Spring, and long before the rebels tossed around the Brother Leader’s corpse like a rag doll in the streets, smarter and savvier autocrats had decided that it was too costly, too risky, to be the type of dictator Gaddafi had become. Other strongmen may be repressive, but they cleverly mask that repression behind a facade of legality, procedure and process.
Paranoid police state
Vladimir Putin, for example, doesn’t simply ensconce himself in the Kremlin for all time. Rather, he observes the country’s constitution by completing two terms as president, handpicking a weaker successor in Dmitry Medvedev and then planning to “return” to office in 2012. Putin could be the de facto leader of Russia for 24 years – and claim never to have acted undemocratically.
Or take Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, one authoritarian leader who publicly stood beside Gaddafi to the bitter end. From a distance, you could be forgiven for confusing Venezuela with a democracy. People openly criticise the government, there are boisterous political parties, and voters can cast ballots at the local, state and national level. But Chavez and his cronies have invented their own formula for manipulating elections – call it dictatorial gerrymandering – to make sure the final outcome usually favours him. When he doesn’t like the results (as in the September 2010 legislative elections that reduced the size of his majority), he can simply sideline the National Assembly by having it grant him decree powers for the next 18 months.
Even the Chinese Communist Party, which brooks no dissent about its right to rule, has relaxed its grip on most of its society. The personal freedoms and privileges of China’s citizens have grown as the party has exchanged its interest in “socialist purity” with wealth creation.
What all of these 21st-century authoritarian leaders understand is that the costs of pure dictatorship have become too high, so they work to achieve similar goals through more sophisticated and subtle means. Gaddafi’s paranoid police state was increasingly incompatible with this modern world. Among the current crop of repressive regimes, Kim Jong-il’s remains the truest bastion of old-school totalitarianism.
Gaddafi may have begun to learn this lesson late in life. The dictator-as-international-pariah routine had grown thin and expensive as Libya’s isolation left it in economic shambles. In 2003, Tripoli accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, and shortly afterward pledged to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. It was the first sign of a more sophisticated approach to the West. With international sanctions lifted, Gaddafi was soon opening the oil-dependent economy, inviting foreign investment, even applying to join the World Trade Organisation. The outlaw sought to refurbish his image and rejoin the family of nations. But for Libyans, his rule remained every bit as draconian.
- The Washington Post
William J Dobson, a former managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine and senior editor for Asia at Newsweek International, is writing a book about dictatorships.
Frank Bainimarama’s fate will be the same as Gadaffi
Winston Thompson’s talk all about propping up team Frank’s criminality
Winston Thompson is an opportunistic retiree who saw Frank Bainimarama’s illegal coup d’etat as the perfect gateway to continue fleecing the people of Fiji. He has lived off Fiji taxpayers monies for a good part of his life and when he finally found a real job at Telecom Fiji as its CEO, his performance was unfortunately unimpressive with his total reliance on the previous governments to continue protecting Telecom Fiji monopolise the telecommunication industry during his term. Those are the same governments he is now rebuking. Winston is hardly a leader with his sheepish way of management. So far, he has nothing to show for in as far as his illegal appointment to Washingston DC is concerned. But that’s his least worry. He is all about smoke and mirrors and is not interested in the livelihood of suffering Fijians in that couped out State, except to keep him and his Quennie bee living off the golden platter like all other imbeciles who are propping up Frank’s regime.
Over the next few months, The Diplomat will be running a series of interviews with Washington DC-based ambassadors on defence, diplomacy, and trade in the Asia-Pacific region. In the second of these interviews, conducted by Washington correspondent Eddie Walsh, Ambassador Winston Thompson of the Republic of Fiji discusses the opportunities and challenges facing his government following the 2006 military coup.
The CIA World Factbook states: ‘Commodore Bainimarama has neutralized his opponents, crippled Fiji’s democratic institutions, and refused to hold elections.’ As the country’s representative to the United States, how do you respond to this position by the US government?
We still consider ourselves a democratically-based country. The reason that we have gone off-track for the moment is because the democratic system that we had in place was not in fact fulfilling the long-term interests of Fiji. Various acts were undertaken by the previous government that were causing polarization within the community. Ethno-nationalistic policies were being followed which the military said shouldn’t be pursued. But the democratic government insisted on carrying on with it, which is why it was removed.
Since it has been in place, the objective of the current government has been to remove ethnic considerations out of the body politic. They will appoint a committee to review the Constitution and carry through this non-racial aspect. They have also embarked upon establishing a developmental programme within Fiji that’s addressing those areas which haven’t been well serviced in the past, such as putting in roads, bridges, and shipping. They’ve been concentrating on that and making development more uniform across the country, and reforming the government system to remove elements of patronage. Finally, there’s the issue of corruption, which the military felt was getting out of hand. One of the reasons given for staging the coup was to get rid of corruption. If you look back on the record, the current government very quickly adopted and ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption and set up the Fiji Independence Commission Against Corruption that has gone into addressing the corruption issue in a vigorous way.
Because the population is made up of two big components, ethnic Fijians and ethnic Indians, you need policies in the government system that bring them to a common position, which the government that was overthrown wasn’t doing. It was processing legislation that would in fact give over the seas and reefs as outright ownership to the land owners – 90 percent of whom are ethnically Fijian. That wasn’t seen as unifying. They were also processing legislation which would have given amnesty to those that had staged the coup in 2000, including releasing those who were imprisoned and being prosecuted. The military said that wasn’t good for the country.
Do you believe that the preconditions existed for democratic governance at the time of Fijian independence? Or do you think that the history of the coups illustrates that those preconditions didn’t exist, or that they must be restored prior to the restoration of democracy?
Those preconditions clearly existed because we were a multiracial society. I think it was hoped that the way the 1970 constitution was framed would provide sufficient time for the communities to develop a more common identity and get on better. In the fullness of time, they then could amend the constitution to better reflect the situation. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. We had the first coup in 1987, and it dislocated the whole dialogue between the two main races. This was being exacerbated by the government, which was overthrown in 2006. Rather than finding ways to bring the communities together, they were driving them apart. This gave rise to the unhappiness of the military over what was happening, which is ironic given that the majority of the military are ethnic Fijians.
Do you therefore perceive the military as the safeguard for stable government in an otherwise cleaved society?
They certainly perceive themselves in that way. Perhaps the circumstances that we are in, they are needed to maintain a national stability.
Despite significant emigration, Indians still represent almost 40percent of the population. From your perspective, are tensions between the Indian and Melanesian population in Fiji dissipating under the current government? What is the current government doing to address such tensions?
I think before the coup, it’s true to say that the Indians were very unhappy and migrating in very large numbers. Since then, they are happy that the conditions in Fiji aren’t against them and they are more prepared to stay and contribute. Also, those that migrated are being encouraged to return. They can also vote in the upcoming election abroad, and the government has moved to allow for dual citizenship for the migrants.
When do you foresee free and fair elections returning to Fiji? Will the Constitution be reinstated at that time?
The government has set out a very clear timetable for the return to elections. In 2013, the constitutional review will take place. By 2014, you’ll have the basis for the elections to take place under a non-racial constitution. Beginning next year, there will be electronic voter registration. This will put in place the proper process to proceed. International monitoring of the elections hasn’t been discussed, but I am sure that will be part of it.
In its short history as an independent country, Fiji has experienced more than its fair share of coups. Why do you think such political turmoil has been an endemic feature of the political system in Fiji?
Since 1987, we’ve had a coup culture. But once we have a constitutional framework that will give a more balanced and universal representation for people in the political system, it will be overcome. Many countries have gone through these cycles, so there’s no reason we can’t get out of it.
What has been the diplomatic impact of the coup and your country’s suspension from participation in the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and Commonwealth of Nations?
As far as we’re concerned, we have a timetable for elections and they have delivered on the path they have promised. Unfortunately, Australia and New Zealand in particular have said that they don’t believe that the elections will be held in 2014. If you take that approach, it’s very difficult. They refuse to acknowledge that steps are already underway for the elections, development is going on, and people are very happy with the progress. Fiji is also still a member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), which is in terms of representation of the Pacific Islands Forum 90 percent of the population, and serves as its chairman. The MSG met before the PIF and its leaders pledged support for Fiji. In fact, they said that they’d move to have Fiji reinstated at the PIF meeting, but only the President of Kiribati was brave enough to come out and say that.
Do you see any opportunity for the strengthening of the multilateral relations between the small island nations of the South Pacific in the future? Could a new security architecture emerge?
There has always been a strong feeling of the South Pacific Islands peoples being together. There was more intercourse between the islands before the European colonization than after. There’s an identity as a South Pacific people. That feeling has strengthened in the last 10 years. Since Fiji was excluded from the PIF, there has been established in the United Nations the Pacific Small Island Developing States. They meet on a regular basis and have more to do with what goes on in the UN than the PIF, which hardly gets a look in anymore. Australia isn’t a South Pacific island – they are a donor country and a post-colonial influence. But, in terms of self-identity, they don’t view Australia and New Zealand as part of the common identity.
As the United States reasserts itself in the Pacific region, how has it affected progress for Fiji and have you seen the relationship between the US and Fiji improve?
Until recently, the US has looked to Australia and New Zealand to call the shots with respect to the relationship with Fiji. But recently, the relationship has improved. They must have realized that after five years of this sort of stand from Australia and New Zealand, it hasn’t made any difference, and there must be a different approach if you want to have any impact or influence on what goes on in Fiji. The other thing is that many others have come to cooperate with Fiji. We have more countries in a friendly relationship with Fiji than ever before.
What is Fiji’s perception of US hegemony in Asia-Pacific? Will the US continue to serve as an unrivalled security guarantor, and do you see its military dominance enduring for at least the next 30-40 years?
Given the recent developments in geopolitics and global economic development, that isn’t as clear as it used to be. There’s going to be more geo-political competition. Our area could be faced with a lot more issues than we have faced in the past.
Are small island nations in the region hedging against US hegemony by looking to other powers?
That’s already happening in the case of Fiji because we were ostracized by our traditional allies and we have had to look elsewhere. That is a fact of life.
The increased diplomatic assertiveness of China in the South Pacific has garnered the attention of many experts and diplomats. Many believe this was the trigger for the large American delegation being sent to the Pacific Islands Forum this year. What do you think China’s motivation is for engagement in the Pacific, and do you see China trying to promote long-term peace and stability in the Pacific?
China has been in Fiji for a long time. They were one of the first to come in when we achieved independence. This isn’t something new. I don’t know why people are interpreting this as something suddenly happening. They have been in the region for 40 years as a development partner. I think their intentions are development oriented. They want to benefit from trade and development possibilities from the economic zone – the exploitation of the seas around us and the mineral resources on land. Their requirements for these are growing all the time. Taiwan also is in Fiji, not in a diplomatic capacity but as a trade partner.
When Kurt Campbell from the US State Department spoke at CSIS a few weeks ago, he was critical of the type of foreign aid that China was providing in the South Pacific and voiced his government’s willingness to work with China to ensure that its aid better met the long-term needs of the region. Do you agree with his assessment? What can China and other foreign countries do better with respect to foreign aid in the South Pacific?
I don’t think that is true at all. The aid that China has been giving for infrastructure development in Fiji has been one of the central requirements for the development of the country. One of the pre-requisites of development in the remote areas is to put in roads, and that’s what they have done. Just because it is an area that other countries haven’t looked at, why should they criticize it as not contributing to long-term development? Trade access is something that should be facilitated by all countries. There should be some concessions provided for small countries to gain access to markets. We find the US has strict quality standards for food imports that it’s very difficult for countries such as ours to meet. It’s something we have to work on and a place where countries with greater capabilities could help.
How are Fiji’s bilateral relations with Australia and New Zealand today? Where are there opportunities for improvement or concern in the relationship?
The relationship isn’t very good at the moment because of the stand that they take. Fortunately, they haven’t disrupted the trade between the two countries. Business relationships are continuing with their counterparts. From that point of view, it’s good. We depend a lot on them for markets for tourism. Fortunately, over the last five years, the number of visitors from Australia and New Zealand have continued to rise. They’ve seen nothing to dissuade them from coming from the domestic situation. Things could have been much better though if they hadn’t taken this very difficult stand.
As ASEAN deepens ties, there is the consideration that it also should broaden. This could be achieved through an extension of relationships to South Pacific countries such as Fiji. Do you see an interest in ASEAN playing a more concrete role in your economic development? What about India?
We would hope ASEAN will play a more concrete role. We are moving to get observer status with the ASEAN countries so they can play a more tangible role. As countries develop, they want to extend their influence to potential markets and areas that could be involved in an economic relationship with them. We are part of their geographic area. With respect to India, economic relations are good. India is part of the Commonwealth stand on Fiji, so military cooperation isn’t something that they are exploring. I think that India’s interests moving forward, though, means that they’ll want to have a greater presence. We want to develop relations with a wide array of countries. In the past, we’ve been influenced to a large extent by Western powers and restricted in our relations by the Commonwealth. What we are realizing is that the world is opening up and we want to take advantage of it by looking more widely than in the past to take advantage of any opportunities that there might be to promote our own interests. This should have happened either way, but being pushed out of the Commonwealth forced us to do this more seriously than we would have otherwise.
Fiji is fortunate not to be party to any major international disputes. Aside from governance, what then are the major traditional and non-traditional security issues facing Fijians today?
We don’t have any serious security issues. We have no arguments with anybody that could lead to war. Since 1978, we’ve contributed troops to UN peace keeping operations in theatres around the world. We are also a member of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. That’s a vulnerable resource, and there has to be careful management of it. But I think there’s enough interest in international conventions that manage this on a diplomatic basis so that it isn’t a military issue.
Many countries in the Asia-Pacific are undergoing serious military modernization. Fiji is seriously limited in its capacity to modernize – both from a budget and human resources standpoint. In your opinion, does Fiji need to pursue more aggressive military modernization in the years ahead, or will you stay the course?
Generally, we don’t see ourselves being faced with any serious security threats that require major modernization of our military capabilities. We would need to modernize our military capabilities though to just do the job we currently are doing in peace keeping operations on a proper basis, because military equipment is evolving all the time and we need to keep up with the technology.
At the time of the coup, some analysts worried that domestic instability could undermine Fiji’s role as the transport hub of the South Pacific. Do you see any long-term effect of the coup on Fiji’s role as a hub in the region?
Fiji has played a central role for a couple of hundred years because of its geographic position. The undersea cables, shipping lines, airline routes make it a central location. We have a very well developed infrastructure that can handle an entrepôt function. If we were going to have serious political instability, it could affect this, but I don’t see that happening. I don’t see other countries hedging against us playing this role either.
Tourism remains a driver of economic growth. Given the volatility in the international markets (especially energy), are you concerned that Fiji must urgently diversify its sources of foreign exchange, and what is the government doing to promote foreign investment?
The government is trying to promote diversification as much as possible. It’s encouraging the agriculture and resource sectors. We have bauxite, gold, and manganese in our mines. We have resources within our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), including manganese nodules. Tourism is moving on its own – it’s experiencing a very satisfactory increase.
It has been reported that Fiji would push for the South Pacific Stock Exchange emerging as a regional exchange. Why hasn’t this occurred, and do you see renewed interest in pushing this ahead?
It’s still moving in the direction of a regional stock exchange. We have Fiji TV listed on the stock exchange, which has holdings in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Bank South Pacific South Pacific of PNG has bought one of the banks in Fiji and is moving to be listed on the South Pacific Stock Exchange. So, I think that with time it will be able to gradually interest others.
Fiji participated in the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. How important is cultural diplomacy to advancing your countries national interests abroad? What countries are the main focus of such outreach?
We aren’t doing too much in public diplomacy. We do have regular attendance at such expos, a military band that travels, a festival of arts held in the South Pacific, and shows like Pacific Night in Washington, DC and elsewhere . However, I don’t know if there’s a systematic plan to exploit this area on the world stage. It is just not being thought of – we don’t have the resources to do much about it. It has nothing to do with our present government status. I think it’s increasingly realized that we need to get a brand though. The fact that Fiji Water is such a recognizable brand matters. We now are launching Fiji Pure Mahogany as a brand. The government is increasingly realizing it needs a systematic approach to building a brand. The government is going to have to take the initiative and spearhead building a brand. It will need to put resources into it and get input from agencies in other countries.
For a small country, Fiji nonetheless is a major force in international rugby union. Unfortunately, the country had a poor showing at this year’s World Cup. What impact will this have on the local economy and what is Fiji doing to ensure that the team is more competitive in the future?
Our sevens team is a better brand for our country than the 15-man competition, and we have won the World Cup twice with the sevens. If we had done well in this World Cup, it would have had an impact. But almost the entire team that played at the World Cup plays their professional rugby full-time overseas. The fact that they are all playing overseas and they have good reputations in the places they play, especially Europe, Australia, and New Zealand – that has an economic impact. So, more Fijian players are being encouraged to go play abroad. There’s a lot of economic benefit that comes from the recognition of Fijians’ ability to play rugby.
http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-forum/2011/10/26/fiji-explores-its-options/
Frank and Aiyaz’s multi racial line crap not applied at military barracks
i thought FB would have already built a Mandir next to the Rabuka Hall up at QEB – and also a Mosque.
that would be consistent with the principles stated in the People’s Charter.
i also thought he would have had the appointment of a Pundit for the RFMF and a Maulana for the RFMF and a Sikh priest for the RFMF done – right now all it has is a Chaplain who is a Christian one
surely its in contradiction to the principles of the Charter that the religion of the RFMF is Christianity – hence Christianity has exclusive preeminence in the institution ?
as part of that process under the Charter wouldn’t it be logical that there would be now four prayers when they have the service at QEB ? one should be Christian, one Muslim and one Hindu and one Sikh ?
and the policy of recruitment for the RFMF would have been to encourage indo fijians to join – and work towards a 50%/ 50% recruitment so that the indo fijian numbers are correctly reflected in the RFMF in accordance with the Charter for Building a better Fiji
i thought the RFMF would have already started implementing the policies of the Charter up at QEB way back in 2007 as part of the Charter implementation program
these are serious questions which need to be asked - why is there no proportional representation within the RFMF of all the races and religions in this country ?
why is there no Mandir within the QEB ?
no Mosque ?
the Commander RFMF has to implement the policies on the Charter in that regard – otherwise its illogical that the rest of society should be made to conform with the People’s Charter whilst the institution which did the coup d’etat in 2006 and is the driver for the implementation Charter, itself, does not conform to those requirements imposed by the Charter.
even schools have had to change their names because of the Charter.
the question is why these changes are not being implemented at QEB ?
its been five years since the 2006 takeover, but there’s no movement on that front.
real jack
Frank and Aiyaz’s new Fiji is more ghettos and extreme poverty
Urban Sprawl – The Ghettos of Suva…
Slumlords exploit poor tenants
Submitted by TemoL on Mon, 04/04/2011 – 7:56am
The Consumer Council of Fiji is concerned with the exploitative nature of tenancy in squatter settlements in the country’s urban centers.
This follows complaints received from poor squatters who are being charged exorbitant rent by dishonest and devious landlords who have illegally built houses on lands that do not belong to them.
Council chief executive Premila Kumar said apart from rent rates as high as $200 a month for a one-room or two-room tin shack, the terms and conditions of the tenancy were often done verbally with no protection of the rights of the tenant.
“Receipts are not issued, repairs not done to the house and verbal threats of eviction made to tenants are just some of the issues confronting tenants who are already plagued by poverty and making honest attempts to earn a living through minimum wages,” she said.
“The landlords are acting as if they own the land or property, on which they have built and rented out houses.
“The council has intervened in one case involving a single mother with four children. The landlord issued a written notice giving the woman just two weeks to vacate the house she was renting at Wailea Settlement in Vatuwaqa, Suva.
“The law affords tenants the right of a month’s notice if landlords want them to move out. In this particular case the council has advised the complainant of her rights and not to move out of the property until such time a proper written one-month notice is given to her.”
Mrs Kumar said the council had also advised the landlord of his obligation to respect his tenant’s rights.
“The council has also sought the assistance of the Ministry of Local Government & Housing for this case, because the land belongs to the state and the council is aware of reports last year that squatter residents living on state land and paying rent to landlords were asked to stop making rental payments,” she said.
“The council is urging the ministry and other responsible government agencies to intervene and curb the exploitation of poor people by unscrupulous landlords. These landlords are basically stealing from the Government by making money from state land.
“This is simply not fair as these landlords are having a free ride and exploiting vulnerable consumers while others are struggling to make an honest living.”
Mrs Kumar said this practice must stop because it is becoming the norm in squatter settlements.
“In the meantime the council is calling on tenants in squatter settlements to raise their complaints if their rights are not being respected by landlords,” she said.
let the camera tell its story…
Upside down Fiji flag protest against Frank Bainimarama’s regime
While Fiji’s dictator Frank and his mouthpiece Sharon Smith-Johns are encouraging Fiji residents to fly their flag this Fiji Day long weekend, a more punchy Fiji flag raising is making waves in New Zealand where the Rugby World Cup is happening.
Fijians are actively carrying their Fiji flags to the footy stadiums upside down as a sign of protest against tyrant Frank Bainimarama and his goons.
Fiji one of Commonwealth’s 33 ghost human rights commissions
The publisher of an article describing Fiji’s Human Rights Commission as a ghost commission says there are 33 such bodies across the Commonwealth.
The article, published in a Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative newsletter, uses Sri Lanka and Fiji as examples of countries where the political environment makes it impossible for human rights commissions to perform their legislative duty.
The initiative’s director, Maja Daruwala, ackowledges that while that means they can be used to advance a governmental agenda, outright condemnation isn’t very useful.
“In one way they’re a complete impediment. But on the other hand everybody also knows about them so it’s not that you can hide, it’s not that people don’t know the difference between substance and effigy. So even to that extent in a sort of perverse sort of way they have a function.”
The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative’s director, Maja Daruwala.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
Leaked Fiji documents reveal more on Air Pacific role in decree
Leaked documents in Fiji have shed more light on a British consultancy’s work on behalf of Air Pacific.
New documents, made public by the blog coupfourandahalf, show the company Marshall-James invoiced Air Pacific 33,000 US dollars in fees.
Last month, the CEO of the firm Marshall-James, Andy Cook, said he had not been engaged by Air Pacific or the Fiji interim government to support or help implement its union decree.
Mr Cook issued a statement to say he had beenasked for an opinion and urged the Fijian Government to adopt a policy of engaging with the International Union Movement and the ILO.
This followed widespread concern that the interim regime’s union decree violated conventions Fiji had signed up to.
However, Air Pacific claimed Mr Cook had been hired to work on its behalf on issues relating to the ILO complaint made against Fiji and the airline.
The decree had been commissioned by Air Pacific from a New York law firm at a cost of 24,000 US dollars.
Neither Air Pacific nor the interim regime has explained the process of procuring the decree.
Qantas, which owns 46 percent of Air Pacific, has been reluctant to comment on its role in commissioning the decree, saying only it doesn’t fly to Fiji.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
Amnesty head says Fiji uprising not impossible
The Secretary General of Amnesty International Salil Shetty says the popular mobilisations in the MiddleEast and North Africa show similar change is not impossible in Fiji.
He says if he’d been told a year ago that Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak would be gone he would have thought it impossible.
Mr Shetty says Amnesty worked for a long time documenting the abuses of the Mubarak regime as it’s doing in Fiji.
Amnesty International has recorded reports of torture and other human rights violations in Fiji and Mr Shetty says the situation is worsening.
“In all these places, we are talking currently about Syria, Yemen, I don’t see how Fiji is such an exception. If this level of violation of human rights continues and if people don’t have a voice and if they have no basic freedoms, in my view it’s a matter of time.”
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
Fijians allowed to criticize their Flying Fijian rugby team but not the regime who controls them
It’s ironic that while Fiji’s censored media outlets are given free reign to publish, beam and broadcast rugby mad Fijian fans utter disgust at the miserable performance by their Flying Fijians rugby world cup team, the same Fijian people are not allowed to criticize Frank’s regime, at least publicly.
Fiji Rugby Union is now controlled by team Frank and like everything else they’ve touched, it’s all gone sour, kaput, finito!
Another of Fiji’s pride and joy has tanked, not only financially but in its failure to deliver the true genius rugby style Fijian players are well known for.
And so the mourning continues in Fiji with the death of their favorite rugby sport by team Frank’s useless personnel parked at Fiji Rugby Union.
Perhaps someone should call Carl Cameron, Frank’s nominee to Fiji Rugby Union board, to compile another death song to rugby funded by Fijian Holdings.
